Is modern instruction killing the game?

[Ft Worth Golfer]

Should be noted, old people, in general, tend to need knee and hip surgery. Regardless if they ever picked up a golf club, ever.

Just because somebody swung a golf club a certain way and needed surgery, does not mean that swinging a golf club a certain way causes surgery. Just from a logical perspective.

Can't fix old.

 

[emart2173]

Sorry, Jack was putting his body into a position to put undo stress on his hips. I'm thinking more of the swings in the Bobby Jones era. You haven't gone back far enough.

Moving the goal post is cool but I still dont think modern instruction is killing the game nor making it more injury prone nor harder for amateurs.

Should be noted, old people, in general, tend to need knee and hip surgery. Regardless if they ever picked up a golf club, ever.

Just because somebody swung a golf club a certain way and needed surgery, does not mean that swinging a golf club a certain way causes surgery. Just from a logical perspective.

Except Chuck Quinton and his company have and continue to use doctors and biomechanics specialist thatthrustudirs and research will disagree. While it’s something that can and usually comes to older crowd some have had to have it sooner because of sports

 

[blugold]

Chuck Quinton and his company have and continue to use doctors and biomechanics specialist thatthrustudirs and research will disagree. While it’s something that can and usually comes to older crowd some have had to have it sooner because of sports

You mean people who sell and promote a style of swing, say that other swing styles cause injuries that require surgery? Seems legit.

 

[mpeterson]

And what about all the hip injuries/replabent th older guys are having from the old school swings. Chuck Wuntin talks about this as well as back injuries.

That old school reverse C finish is terrible for the back.

 

[Lynford]

I can’t help but think that however you swing it, if you spend hours a day doing it plus bent over putting for long periods of time, it’s not going to do your back any good.

 

[Sean]

The game of golf has been around for more then 500 years. In that time, look how far we have advanced technologically. During that same period no one has figured out a way to simplify the teaching of the golf swing.

 

[wadesworld]

A little older than 2-3 years This is from 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6skkV1nNKsY

My reference to Shawn teaching position is from his instruction videos that you have to buy. Since he makes his living selling these I will not post any of them here.

You misunderstand the teaching.

To make the most optimal golf swing possible, one must achieve certain positions, or somewhere close to them. One cannot make an optimal swing with their weight on their back foot, their head out front, and the club stuck behind them, no matter how natural the swing is.

The key distinction is HOW one achieves those positions. You can do it via mechanical repetition of drills with focus on body part positioning, or by altering your focus and task to lead you to the proper positions without thinking about them. I can assure you beyond any shadow of doubt that Shawn is 100% in the latter camp, and yes, I've seen all his paid instructional material.

His instruction and metaphors have changed over the years, but he's the farthest thing you'd find from a positionally-focused teacher.

 

[Smiter]

Nobody is claiming that they are hitting 250 yard drives.

All I disagreed with is without distance you can't compete and the longer players are better than the shorter players. No way someone would change my mind on either of those statements.

I posted a thread on my middle sons swing a couple weeks ago. He's a young 13 and carries a lowish draw drive about 225, rollout right now can get him close to 275, maybe more if FW is hit and it stays in there. Everything is firm summer here right now.

I'm, let's just call it, significantly longer. On a good day for him he can compete with me. He's light years ahead of me greenside and even with putting. We had a round where he was hitting 3w or hybrid on a long course into greens closer than I was hitting 8-9i. I hope once he grows into his man body that he can keep his touch. My oldest is almost 15 and swings as hard as the PGA average. He's never come close to breaking par. He's an exaggerated version of me, a blunt instrument with no touch. Kills the ball. Our home course the range ends with a row of pine trees at 265 or so. The 6th FW is right behind. Not all of their crap rangeballs can get there but he's peppered that FW with a littering of range fodder.

My point? I'm still the alpha golfer amongst us. If we play a par 3 course that's short, my middle son sometimes kills me. My oldest hits just a little behind me now on his great strikes from the tee. He'll catch me in the next year or two (hopefully two). His odds of breaking 90 are still slim. He hits it like a gorilla, tee to putt. I've got 20-25 MPH clubhead speed on my middle son. Maybe 5-10 on my oldest. My middle son has never lost to his big bro. His touch and vision are better than any of the rest of us, he can compete. He can't quite break par yet, but he's gained 30+ yards since 6 months ago and I'm excited to see what he can do. Length isn't everything. Too much of a lack of it can prohibit you but if you're talking 20 yards or so, the shorter guy can compete. If they have a complete game, they can win. My middle son can compete with me sometimes despite me being 50 yards + ahead of him. He beats my oldest boy every time despite being 2-3 irons behind him from the same distance and despite being 30+ yards on average behind him from the tee.

Distance is great. But a complete game is much, much, much more important.

 

[Double Eagle]

You misunderstand the teaching.

To make the most optimal golf swing possible, one must achieve certain positions, or somewhere close to them. One cannot make an optimal swing with their weight on their back foot, their head out front, and the club stuck behind them, no matter how natural the swing is.

The key distinction is HOW one achieves those positions. You can do it via mechanical repetition of drills with focus on body part positioning, or by altering your focus and task to lead you to the proper positions without thinking about them. I can assure you beyond any shadow of doubt that Shawn is 100% in the latter camp, and yes, I've seen all his paid instructional material.

His instruction and metaphors have changed over the years, but he's the farthest thing you'd find from a positionally-focused teacher.

We will have to agree to disagree on Shawn. I have nothing against him. I invested over $1k and 2 years in his teachings both on line and in person. I like him. He's a straight up guy. I've watched some of his latest vids and like some of what I see. He has changed a lot.

As for the rest of your statement let me say this: it is easier to teach someone to play this game by letting the body get into the positions as a result of the swing rather than by position. There are studies that show that people learn golf faster from external cues (the swing) than from internal cues (positions).

If you want some proof you can start by watching this video starting at 4:30 to 5:03 and then please explain how anyone can learn to do this by assuming positions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w00dSxmFaw Or, take a look at the 1st 30 seconds of this and again, explain how to do this by modern instruction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzOxKc4Wao4

I don't care what anyone else chooses to learn. My claim is that more recreational golfers will play better with more enjoyment, and do it faster than by modern instruction.

 

[wadesworld]

I don't care what anyone else chooses to learn. My claim is that more recreational golfers will play better with more enjoyment, and do it faster than by modern instruction.

I don't disagree in the least, in fact, others on this site will attest to the fact I'm the oddball. I'm the one arguing non-conventional instruction has been far better for me, and it pains me to think of all the golfers who might benefit as well, but they just can't make the logical leap.

 

[Paladin]

I respectfully disagree. Nothing wrong with a long fast swing. Problems for Rory came because he packed on a bunch of muscle and was stronger and creating more force then his body can handle. Bubba has a super long golf swing and that isn't the problem. If Bubba killed it in the gym and packed on a ton of muscle, he would probably increase his chances of getting injured. The stronger you are, the more force you can generate, the more pressure you put on your body.
One thing people haven't mentioned is the modern lack of lower body movement. Going back to Bubba I feel like he has an old school swing by lifting his front foot's heal off the ground and getting that big hip turn. With the modern swing you see a lot of guys keeping that front foot planted through out the back swing. Not sure if that has contributed to back injuries.

Bubba's golf swing generates almost no resistance in comparison to Rory's. That is, he does nothing to stop his hips turning during the backswing. Further, he also completes his follow through in a massively different position, which helps shield certain joints from nearly as much torque as a more conventional swing.

This is a conversation about modern golf instruction, and no one would teach Bubba's swing. Bubba has famously had no golf instruction, let alone being taught a modern versus old school swing. My point has far more to do with golfers being taught a modern golf swing that, without being a good generalized athlete, is bad for the body. I'd say the same thing about nearly any coordination and speed based movement, from gymnastics to baseball to golf.

 

[Double Eagle]

Bubba's golf swing generates almost no resistance in comparison to Rory's. That is, he does nothing to stop his hips turning during the backswing. Further, he also completes his follow through in a massively different position, which helps shield certain joints from nearly as much torque as a more conventional swing.

This is a conversation about modern golf instruction, and no one would teach Bubba's swing. Bubba has famously had no golf instruction, let alone being taught a modern versus old school swing. My point has far more to do with golfers being taught a modern golf swing that, without being a good generalized athlete, is bad for the body. I'd say the same thing about nearly any coordination and speed based movement, from gymnastics to baseball to golf.

Bubba, along with many other pro golfers proves my point. They have an individual swing. But they learned how to hit the ball from nearly any position and hit it accurately. You can play at the highest levels without modern instruction. As a result of his learning to develop the skill of a fast, fluid swing and using his natural hand eye coordination to use the club head to hit the ball he has also avoided injuries for the most part.

 

[Double Eagle]

I don't disagree in the least, in fact, others on this site will attest to the fact I'm the oddball. I'm the one arguing non-conventional instruction has been far better for me, and it pains me to think of all the golfers who might benefit as well, but they just can't make the logical leap.

I'll have to re-read your posts. I may have misunderstood. If so, my apologies.

 

[ntanygd760]

Nobody is claiming that they are hitting 250 yard drives.

All I disagreed with is without distance you can't compete and the longer players are better than the shorter players. No way someone would change my mind on either of those statements.

While they are not better per say they have it easier with a much bigger margin for error on approach shots letting them have better results without their A game. The tour is basically about being long enough. Short hitters have very little chance on courses with no roll playing 7600+ though. I think a good example would be Bethpage during its first US Open. Short hitters had zero chance. Some even had issue reaching some of the fairways.

 

[Double Eagle]

I hope most are familiar with Ernest Jones. If you aren't here's why maybe you should be. Jones was a high level golfer before WW 1. In 1915 he went to war. In 1916 he lost his right leg below the knee. Yet in just a few months was playing scratch golf. I will pay attention to someone who scores like that and does it on one leg. There are so many things he cannot do yet could play very well. Here is a link to his book. https://archive.org/stream/golfswingernestj00hammiala/golfswingernestj00hammiala_djvu.txt I've read it. I became interested in Jones because of many mentions of him by others so I finally looked him up. If you're frustrated from lack of progress this may give you a direction to go. If you are physically limited like I am this may help. Then in combination with Ron Sisson, Brain Sparks and Manuel de la Torre you may find rapid progress to lower scores. Final question. What do you have to lose?

 

[ntanygd760]

Bingo! The pro is the example.

Here's a question. How many recreational golfers watch golf on TV? Nearly all of them. What do the commentators talk about? Occasionally, they talk about the "positions" the player gets into. They analyze the swing. They talk about hips resisting the torso to store energy (BS). How many recreational golfers attempt some parts of what they hear? I'd say a lot of them. What results do they have? If they're like me probably a screaming slice out of bounds, or some other equally disastrous shot.

All this comes from the whole x factor thing of getting the most separation of hips and shoulders. Artificially restricting the hips just to increase the separation is just misguided and not the way to go. That said working on flexibility to increase the number is the way to go.

Does Foley actually teach the restricted hip thing though?